In addition to this, I’ve noticed that OpenTofu is gaining much more interesting features and are actually acting upon long-requested functionality that HashiCorp has refused to implement (example: provider for_each in 1.9.0)

> (I think as they were gearing up to be a more attractive target for an exit).

A common conspiracy theory, but not true.

> were gearing up to be a more attractive target for an exit

An "exit" from the public market?

Maybe that's how it should work, but it's not how it actually works.

The culture makes the company. Everyone on the lower rungs of the org chart knows this, because it's what they live and breathe every day. A positive, supportive workplace culture with clear goals and relative autonomy is a thing of beauty. You routinely find people doing more work than they really have to because they believe in the mission, or their peers, or the work is just fun. People join the company (and stay) because they WANT to not because they have to.

Past a certain company size, upper management NEVER sees this. They are always looking outward: strategy, customers, marketing, competition. Never in. They've been trained to give great motivational speeches that instill a sense of company pride and motivation for about 30 seconds. After that, employee morale is HR's job.

I have worked in a company that got acquired while it was profitable. The culture change was slow but dramatic. We went from a fun, dynamic culture with lots of teamwork and supportive management, to one step or two above Office Space. As far as the acquiring company was concerned, everything we were doing didn't matter, even if it worked. We had to conform to their systems and processes, or find new jobs. Most of us eventually did the latter.

Somehow Red Hat seems to be a notable exception. Although IBM owns Red Hat, they seem to have mostly left it alone instead of absorbing it. The name "IBM" doesn't even appear on redhat.com. Because I'm an outsider, I can't say whether IBM meddled in Red Hat's HR or management, but I would guess not.

It seems like most users got tired of the unknowns with CentOS and went to Alma/Rocky. Doesn't help that most third party software vendors also didn't bother to support it.

How has it been? Sincere question.

The Gnome desktop that shipped with Solaris over two decades ago is just as useful, possibly more useful, as the tablet-oriented hamburger menu UI of today.

Yes, two decades: https://adtmag.com/articles/2003/08/04/solaris-gets-a-gnome-...

I'm not sure this is bad? It's still maintained, and it isn't like there are frequent revolutions in UI design - if it works, it works.

Slow and boring is a pretty nice place to be.

The people on the Red Hat desktop team that work on GNOME are killing it. I think you might not be paying attention. Not every change is visible.

If only it had stagnated around gnome 2.0.

Has it? I feel like Gnome has made great progress the last few years

>> Gnome has stagnated significantly.

GTK is still alive. It seems like Cosmic desktop with GTK apps will be a reasonable path forward. Of course there's KDE and QT, but I mean as an alternative to those.

Could that be due to increased popularity of KDE?

Linux on the desktop isn't a lucrative business